To:
`
`Subject:
`
`Sent:
`
`Sent As:
`
`Attachments:
`
`Tubi, Inc. (trademarks@cobaltlaw.com)
`
`U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 88296598 - TUBI - TUBI 38
`
`4/30/2019 4:51:23 PM
`
`ECOM105@USPTO.GOV
`
`Attachment - 1
`Attachment - 2
`Attachment - 3
`Attachment - 4
`Attachment - 5
`Attachment - 6
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
`OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
`
`U.S. APPLICATION
`SERIAL NO.   88296598
`
`           
`
`MARK: TUBI
`
`CORRESPONDENT
`ADDRESS:
`  
`       TRAVIS MANFREDI
`  
`       COBALT LLP
`         1912 BONITA
`AVENUE
`           BERKELEY, CA
`94704
`    
`   
`APPLICANT: Tubi, Inc.
`
`    
`
`*88296598*
`
`CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS
`LETTER:
`http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
`
`VIEW YOUR APPLICATION FILE
`
`CORRESPONDENT’S
`REFERENCE/DOCKET
`
`   
`
`NO:       
`
`  TUBI 38
`CORRESPONDENT E-
`
`MAIL ADDRESS:       
`
`trademarks@cobaltlaw.com
`
`OFFICE ACTION
`
`STRICT DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER
`TO AVOID ABANDONMENT OF APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION, THE USPTO MUST RECEIVE APPLICANT’S
`COMPLETE RESPONSE TO THIS LETTER WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE ISSUE/MAILING DATE BELOW.   A RESPONSE
`TRANSMITTED THROUGH THE TRADEMARK ELECTRONIC APPLICATION SYSTEM (TEAS) MUST BE RECEIVED BEFORE
`MIDNIGHT EASTERN TIME OF THE LAST DAY OF THE RESPONSE PERIOD.
`
`ISSUE/MAILING DATE: 4/30/2019
`
`The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney.  Applicant must respond timely and completely to
`the issue(s) below.  15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.
`
`SUMMARY OF ISSUES:
`Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion
`
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`

`

`SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
`
`Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 4763028 and
`5414516.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registrations.
`
`Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that is so similar to a registered mark that it is likely consumers would be
`confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the commercial source of the goods and/or services of the parties.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).  Likelihood of
`confusion is determined on a case-by-case basis by applying the factors set forth in In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361,
`177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973) (called the “ du Pont factors”).   In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1322, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1747
`(Fed. Cir. 2017).  Only those factors that are “relevant and of record” need be considered.   M2 Software, Inc. v. M2 Commc’ns, Inc. , 450 F.3d
`1378, 1382, 78 USPQ2d 1944, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Shen Mfg. Co. v. Ritz Hotel Ltd., 393 F.3d 1238, 1241, 73 USPQ2d 1350, 1353 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2004)); see In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC , 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1744 (TTAB 2018).  
`
`Although not all du Pont factors may be relevant, there are generally two key considerations in any likelihood of confusion analysis:  (1) the
`similarities between the compared marks and (2) the relatedness of the compared goods and/or services.  See In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d at
`1322, 123 USPQ2d at 1747 (quoting Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc. , 308 F.3d 1156, 1164-65, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002));
`Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d 1098, 1103, 192 USPQ 24, 29 (C.C.P.A. 1976) (“The fundamental inquiry mandated
`by [Section] 2(d) goes to the cumulative effect of differences in the essential characteristics of the goods [or services] and differences in the
`marks.”); TMEP §1207.01.
`
`Comparison of the Marks
`
`Marks are compared in their entireties for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression.  Stone Lion Capital
`Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1321, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve
`Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1371, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2005)); TMEP §1207.01(b)-(b)(v). 
`“Similarity in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find the marks confusingly similar.”   In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC , 126 USPQ2d
`1742, 1746 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1812 (TTAB 2014)); TMEP §1207.01(b).
`
`Applicant’s mark is “TUBI” in standard character form.
`
`The mark in Registration No. 4763028 is “TUBI TV” in standard character form.
`
`The mark in Registration No. 5414516 is “TUBI” in standard character form.
`
`Comparison of Applicant’s Mark and the Mark in Registration No. 4763028
`
`  Marks may be confusingly similar in
`Applicant’s mark and the mark in Registration No. 4763028 both contain the identical wording “TUBI”.
`appearance where similar terms or phrases or similar parts of terms or phrases appear in the compared marks and create a similar overall
`commercial impression.  See Crocker Nat’l Bank v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce , 228 USPQ 689, 690-91 (TTAB 1986), aff’d sub
`nom. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n , 811 F.2d 1490, 1495, 1 USPQ2d 1813, 1817 (Fed. Cir. 1987)
`(finding COMMCASH and COMMUNICASH confusingly similar); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65, 66 (TTAB 1985) (finding
`CONFIRM and CONFIRMCELLS confusingly similar); In re Pellerin Milnor Corp., 221 USPQ 558, 560 (TTAB 1983) (finding MILTRON and
`MILLTRONICS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii).  Further, because of this shared identical wording, these marks are likely to
`engender the same connotation and overall commercial impression when considered in connection with applicant’s and registrant’s respective
`goods.  See In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015), aff’d, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`Further, the remaining wording in registrant’s mark, “TV”, does not meaningfully distinguish the marks, as this wording has been disclaimed.
`Although marks are compared in their entireties, one feature of a mark may be more significant or dominant in creating a commercial
`impression.  See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Nat’l Data Corp. , 753 F.2d 1056,
`1058, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii).  Disclaimed matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s
`goods and/or services is typically less significant or less dominant when comparing marks.  In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1305, 128
`USPQ2d 1047, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); TMEP
`§1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii).
`
`Accordingly, applicant’s mark and registrant’s mark are confusingly similar.
`
`Comparison of Applicant’s Mark and the Mark in Registration No. 5414516
`
`  Thus,
`Applicant’s mark is “TUBI” in standard character form and Mark in Registration No. 5414516 is “TUBI” in standard character form.
`these marks are identical in appearance, sound, and meaning, “and have the potential to be used . . . in exactly the same manner.”   In re
`
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`

`

`i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015), aff’d, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017).  Additionally, because
`they are identical, these marks are likely to engender the same connotation and overall commercial impression when considered in connection
`with applicant’s and registrant’s respective services.
`  Id.
`
`Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.  
`
`Comparison of the Services
`
`The goods and/or services are compared to determine whether they are similar, commercially related, or travel in the same trade channels.  See
`Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369-71, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722-23 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa
`Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1165, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002); TMEP §§1207.01, 1207.01(a)(vi).
`
`Applicant identifies the following services:
`
`Class 38:        
`
`Streaming of audiovisual and multimedia content via the Internet; transmission and delivery of audiovisual and multimedia
`content via the Internet; video-on-demand transmission services.
`
`Registration No. 4763028 identifies the following services:
`
`Class 38:        
`
`Streaming of audiovisual and multimedia content via the Internet through connected devices; electronic transmission and
`delivery of audiovisual and multimedia content via connected devices; video-on-demand transmission services.
`
`Registration No. 5414516 identifies the following services:
`
`Class 38:        
`
`Streaming of audio, visual and audiovisual material via a global computer network.
`
`When analyzing an applicant’s and registrant’s goods and/or services for similarity and relatedness, that determination is based on the
`description of the goods and/or services in the application and registration at issue, not on extrinsic evidence of actual use.  See Stone Lion
`Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1323, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Octocom Sys. Inc. v. Hous.
`
`Computers Servs. Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 942, 16 USPQ2d 1783, 1787 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).  
`
`Additionally, the goods and/or services of the parties have no restrictions as to nature, type, channels of trade, or classes of purchasers and are
`“presumed to travel in the same channels of trade to the same class of purchasers.”   In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905,
`
`1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1268, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).  
`
`In this case, applicant’s services are identical to, encompass, or are encompassed by the services in Registration No. 4763028 and 5414516.  See
`https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/streaming (broadly defining “streaming” as “[o]f or relating to data transmitted in a continuous
`stream while earlier parts are being used”) (attached).   Therefore, it is presumed that the channels of trade and class(es) of purchasers are the
`same for these goods and/or services.  See Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., __ F.3d __, 27 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting In re
`Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).  Thus, applicant’s and registrants’ services are related.
`
`Conclusion
`
`The overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods and/or services, but to protect the registrant from
`adverse commercial impact due to use of a similar mark by a newcomer.  See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690
`(Fed. Cir. 1993).  Therefore, any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion determination is resolved in favor of the registrant.  TMEP
`§1207.01(d)(i); see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1265, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Hyper
`Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 464-65, 6 USPQ2d 1025, 1026 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
`
`For the reasons discussed above, registration is refused under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
`
`Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by submitting evidence and arguments in
`support of registration.
`
`RESPONSE GUIDELINES
`
`Please call or email the assigned trademark examining attorney with questions about this Office action.  Although the trademark examining
`attorney cannot provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights, the trademark examining attorney can provide applicant with
`additional explanation about the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action.  See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.  Although the USPTO does
`
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`  
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`

`

`not accept emails as responses to Office actions, emails can be used for informal communications and will be included in the application record. 
`
`See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05.  
`
`To expedite prosecution of the application, applicant is encouraged to file its response to this Office action online via the Trademark Electronic
`Application System (TEAS), which is available at http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/index.jsp.  If applicant has technical questions about the
`TEAS response to Office action form, applicant can review the electronic filing tips available online at
`http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/e_filing_tips.jsp and e-mail technical questions to TEAS@uspto.gov.
`
`  
`
`/Matthew Tully/
`Matthew Tully
`Trademark Examining Attorney
`Law Office 105
`(571) 270-5943
`matthew.tully@uspto.gov
`
`TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER:   Go to http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp.   Please wait 48-72 hours from the
`issue/mailing date before using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), to allow for necessary system updates of the application. 
`For technical assistance with online forms, e-mail TEAS@uspto.gov.  For questions about the Office action itself, please contact the assigned
`trademark examining attorney.  E-mail communications will not be accepted as responses to Office actions; therefore, do not respond to
`this Office action by e-mail.
`
`All informal e-mail communications relevant to this application will be placed in the official application record.
`
`WHO MUST SIGN THE RESPONSE:  It must be personally signed by an individual applicant or someone with legal authority to bind an
`applicant (i.e., a corporate officer, a general partner, all joint applicants).  If an applicant is represented by an attorney, the attorney must sign the
`
`response.  
`
`PERIODICALLY CHECK THE STATUS OF THE APPLICATION:   To ensure that applicant does not miss crucial deadlines or official
`notices, check the status of the application every three to four months using the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) system at
`http://tsdr.uspto.gov/.   Please keep a copy of the TSDR status screen.   If the status shows no change for more than six months, contact the
`Trademark Assistance Center by e-mail at TrademarkAssistanceCenter@uspto.gov or call 1-800-786-9199.   For more information on checking
`status, see http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/process/status/.
`
`TO UPDATE CORRESPONDENCE/E-MAIL ADDRESS:  Use the TEAS form at http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/correspondence.jsp.
`
` 
` 
` 
` 
`  
`

`

`Pfint:flpr26,2818
`
`88282788
`
`DESIGN MARK
`
`Serial Number
`86262?88
`
`Status
`REGISTERED
`
`Word Mark
`TUBI TV
`
`Standard Character Mark
`Yes
`
`Registration Number
`4188828
`
`Date Registered
`2815x88x38
`
`T‘ype at Mark
`SERVICE MARK
`
`Register
`PRINCIPAL
`
`Mark Drawing Code
`[4]
`STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
`
`Owner
`Adrise, Inc. CORPORATION DELAWARE 560 Mission Street, Suite 1301 San
`Francisco CALIFORNIA 94105
`
`GoodsfServiees
`
`G S S: Streaming
`100 101 104.
`US
`IC 038.
`Class Status -- ACTIVE.
`of audiovisual and multimedia content via the Internet through
`connected devices; electronic transmission and delivery of audiovisual
`and multimedia content via connected devices; Video-on-demand
`transmission services. First Use: 2614f04f04. First Use In Commerce:
`2014H04H04.
`
`Disclaimer Statement
`N8 CLAIM IS MADE T8 THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT T8 USE "TV" APART ER8M THE
`MARK AS SHOWN.
`
`Filing Date
`2014H04H25
`
`Examining Attorney
`MICHELI, ANGELA M.
`
`

`

`Print: Apr 26, 2818
`
`88282788
`
`Attorney of Record
`Michael J. Bevilacqua, Esq.
`
`

`

`TUBI TV
`
`

`

`Print: Apr 26, 2D19
`
`374-34309
`
`DESIGN MARK
`
`serial Number
`8T434309
`
`Status
`REGISTERED
`
`Word Mark
`TUBI
`
`Standard Character Mark
`Yes
`
`Registration Number
`5414516
`
`Date Registered
`2018x02x21
`
`Type of Mark
`SERVICE MARK
`
`Register
`PRINCIPAL
`
`Mark Drawing Code
`[4]
`STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
`
`Owner
`INC. CCRSCRATICN CALIFORNIA 315 Montgomery Street, FL 11 SAN
`TDDI,
`FRANCISCO CHLIFORNIA 94104
`
`GoodsfServioes
`
`G a S: Streaming
`100 101 104.
`US
`IC 038.
`Class Statue -- ACTIVE.
`of audio, visual and audiovisual material Via a global computer
`network. First Use: ZOlefldflll. First Use In Commerce: ZOlTHOIHlS.
`
`Filing Date
`EOlTHOEHUB
`
`Examining Attorney
`COLLOPY, DIANE
`
`Attorneyr of Record
`Alan Ku
`
`

`

`tubi
`
`

`

`DICTIONARV
`
`THESAURUS
`
`GRAMMAR
`
`2:37 08 PM 4430f2019
`Mlps lien oxioldd ionalig com/delinflioriluslslleamilg
`EXPLORE
`WORDOFTHEVEAR
`FORUM BLOG
`
`; SIGNIN
`
`n y 6‘
`
`J’iiiunm'hllv
`
`:Jxrolm
`
`.
`.
`i
`English.
`. Oxford mej DICtIOfiaHeS
`[>x
`
`EHCTIONARY[ 51V
`
`slreamm
`
`g
`
`|>><
`
`- Q 1%} m - NORDSTROM
`"
`‘1
`Home > Nurth Amenoan Enghsh 7 s‘reammg
`
`WORD OFTHEwa
`dyspepSIa
`
`GET WORD or THE DAV av EMAIL
`
`
`Deflnitlon ofstreammgm us Engllsh:
`Ameniod nftiansmimng or receimng dam [sspana‘ly VldeD and audio materiallouei a
`
`Tryon! inleractiva feammtu learn
`how words enterthe OED!
`
`
`
`mum
`
`streaming 0° (*3
`
`NDUN
`:
`(ampmr'rig
`mmputer netwnrk as a steady. continuous flow, alkzwing piayback m star: while the rest of
`the data is still bemg received.
`o [xampiesencences
`2 sum The praciice of putting schoolchildren in groups onhe same age and abllityta be
`canght togemer.
`'srreaml'ng within seminary smools I's (ommon urarn'ce’
`ADJEC'I'IVE
`1
`(ampurr'ng
`Reianngm or making use Dfafnrm oftapa transpom used mainiy to prowde badmp storage,
`in WhKh data may be transferred m nuik whlle the tape is in motion.
`4 Examp‘esentences
`(amputmg
`oforrelanngto demotransmitted ma continuousstreamwhile earner pansare being used. —
`a Exampiesenzences
`1 British (Ola cold) accompanied hycopious runnlng oicne nose and eyes.
`'Shz's gum streaming cold}
`4 synonyms
`
`Pmnuncialion (3
`
`
`
`Purchasean OED subscriptionfor
`just £90 / $90
`
`2
`
`|> X
`
`‘-
`
`N
`
`&
`
`streaming fslrémlNGl / sin-mi]; 4.))
`
`‘ m
`
`V
`
`

`

`To:
`
`Subject:
`
`Sent:
`
`Sent As:
`
`Attachments:
`
`Tubi, Inc. (trademarks@cobaltlaw.com)
`
`U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 88296598 - TUBI - TUBI 38
`
`4/30/2019 4:51:25 PM
`
`ECOM105@USPTO.GOV
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
`
`IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING YOUR
`U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION
`
`USPTO OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) HAS ISSUED
`ON 4/30/2019 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88296598
`
`Please follow the instructions below:
`
`(1)  TO READ THE LETTER:  Click on this link or go to http://tsdr.uspto.gov, enter the U.S. application serial number, and click on
`“Documents.”
`
`The Office action may not be immediately viewable, to allow for necessary system updates of the application, but will be available within 24
`hours of this e-mail notification.
`
`(2)  TIMELY RESPONSE IS REQUIRED:  Please carefully review the Office action to determine (1) how to respond, and (2) the applicable
`response time period.  Your response deadline will be calculated from 4/30/2019 (or sooner if specified in the Office action).  A response
`transmitted through the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) must be received before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the
`response period.   For information regarding response time periods, see http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/process/status/responsetime.jsp.
`
`Do NOT hit “Reply” to this e-mail notification, or otherwise e-mail your response because the USPTO does NOT accept e-mails as
`responses to Office actions. 
`Instead,
`the USPTO recommends that you respond online using the TEAS response form located at
`http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp.
`
`(3)  QUESTIONS:  For questions about the contents of the Office action itself, please contact the assigned trademark examining attorney.  For
`technical assistance in accessing or viewing the Office action in the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) system, please e-mail
`TSDR@uspto.gov.
`
`WARNING
`
`Failure to file the required response by the applicable response deadline will result in the ABANDONMENT of your application.  For
`more information regarding abandonment, see http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/abandon.jsp.
`
`PRIVATE COMPANY SOLICITATIONS REGARDING YOUR APPLICATION:  Private companies not associated with the USPTO are
`using information provided in trademark applications to mail or e-mail trademark-related solicitations.  These companies often use names that
`closely resemble the USPTO and their solicitations may look like an official government document.  Many solicitations require that you pay
`
`“fees.”   
`
`Please carefully review all correspondence you receive regarding this application to make sure that you are responding to an official document
`from the USPTO rather than a private company solicitation.  All official USPTO correspondence will be mailed only from the “United States
`Patent and Trademark Office” in Alexandria, VA; or sent by e-mail from the domain “@uspto.gov.”   For more information on how to handle
`private company solicitations, see http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/solicitation_warnings.jsp.
`
` 
`  
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`  
`